Janak Lal Ratre v. State Of Chhattisgarh

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 9416 of 2019 Janak Lal Ratre, S/o. Late Shri Sewaram Ratre, Aged About 43 Years, Posted As Assistant Sub Inspector (Ministerial), Office Of S.P. Office, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2. Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Inspector General Of Police, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State :

Ms. Akanksha Jain, Dy. G.A.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri Order on Board 19.11.2019

1. Grievance of the petitioner is that because of the inclusion of name of one Meena Khandare in the prospective promotional list at serial No.35 wherein she was categorized to be Scheduled Caste, the petitioner's name was not included. Subsequently, on a complaint having been made that Meena Khandare do not belong to Scheduled Caste, on verification, the name of Meena Khandare was deleted whereby the petitioner got place in the prospective promotional list to be considered by order dated 21.12.2016. It is contended that though the name of the petitioner was included to be considered for promotion, despite several representations made to the I.G. Police, the same is not being considered.

2. Perused the documents. Perusal of the record would show that initially one name of Meena Khandare was included for consideration in promotional list under the category of Scheduled Caste. The document

subsequently would show that on a complaint being made and on enquiry when it was found that Meena Khandare belongs to General category, her name was deleted from the prospective consideration of the promotional list and by order dated 21.12.2016 (Annexure P-5) name of the petitioner was included at serial No.65. Subsequent letters attached with this petition shows that the petitioner has made several representations for consideration of his name for promotion, however, the same has not been considered.

3. The facts would show that there is no dispute to the fact that the name of the petitioner was included for consideration in the promotional list, therefore, the petitioner has inherent right for consideration of promotion; therefore, the representation filed by the petitioner requires consideration. If the petitioner's name was included for prospective promotional candidate then irrespective of the fact what would be outcome of the eventual result of promotion, the petitioner cannot be denied for consideration of promotion. Accordingly, the petitioner's representation is directed to be decided by the respondent No.3 for consideration of promotion within a period of 4 months.

4. With such observation, the petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge Ashok